Well that is where we will always differ, I am prepared to discuss the facts, not minipulate them and to claim the moral high ground as it now appears you are trying to do - why say you haven't read anything and appear as a neutral when infact you already know the source. I don't need to post a source because the evidence is right in front of you when you look at the page. it states a 'myth' and then answers it's very own myth for starters. It is a very unbalanced presentation bordering on whipping up of hysteria.
You have said I am avoiding the issue, I actually responded to the posting of the site addres, where you have clearly read that post, so I do not know why you feel the need to come up with this kind of tripe.
Then you go on to assume that I am claiming the statistics are made up? I have not said that, so you are also mis quoting me in an attempt to try and prove a point, it's all a bit pathetic really and a recurring theme. By having facts there it proves absolutely nothing untill the site tries to put it's own spin on it, and low and behold suddenly there are seemingly irrefutable facts that people claim which only tell half the story.
As for the strengthening of the page rankings, are you saying that by posting it on here will not influence it at all? I think you are wrong, as it will still be a link being posted. Anyway that is irrelevant as I won't be posting it anyway.
Except you haven't discussed the facts at all, you've simply avoided the matter over and over again. I wouldn't accuse other people of claiming the moral high grounds when just a few posts back, you alluded to how a post indicated the 'level of intellect that these sites attract' and indeed in this very post, accuse me of posting tripe and being pathetic. Glad to see you're not taking the moral high road though.
What do you mean when I already know the source? The source isn't on this thread, the source for the claim about refugees is on that facebook page, in his first post. It has nothing to do with reading through this thread.
To be completely honest, I've become a little bit confused about what you are arguing for or about, with either me or the other poster. Perhaps this is me and my low intellect compared to your superior intellect, its hard for me down here on the immoral low road. So you'll have to take mercy on me and explain a few things.
You've discounted the whole page he sent you. I've done a search of the thread with the word propaganda and this are the 2 posts which come up from you:
I had a look and have never seen such a misleading and minipulative set of 'facts' on one page. No wonder people end up arguing if that is what is being used to validate their prerogative. Proves absolutely zip apart from the fact that you can disproportionately use statistics to make people feel better about doing something which is never something I would agree with obviously.
As soon as I saw the properganda about how many per cent of people go to the first country as refugees it summed your whole viewpoint up, assuming you support such drivel under the banner of 'keep calm Britain' which you clearly do as suggested by your eagerness to push the site address to me.
So now hopefully we'll get somewhere. So you don't like it because you can disproportionately use stats to make people feel better about doing something. You also consider the 'fact' and the stats behind it 'propaganda about how many % of people go to the 1st country as refugees'.
Let's dissect and try to find what you consider upsetting about this.
Is it the original claim? You don't think that people even claim that asylum seekers should go to the next safest country rather than come here?
Is it that you don't believe that 80% of the world's refugees are hosted in developing countries, rather than the UK and other MEDCs?
Is it that you think the stats are being misrepresented by this page?
By having facts there it proves absolutely nothing untill the site tries to put it's own spin on it, and low and behold suddenly there are seemingly irrefutable facts that people claim which only tell half the story
This is perhaps your quote which most confuses me. What is the site's own spin on the refugee numbers from the UN refugee agency? And why is the fact that 80% of refugees are in develping countries a 'seemingly irrefutable fact?'
And finally, its nonsense to claim that posting the link would significantly increase the likes of that page. As I've already said, there are approximately 500 active members on this board. How many do you think go on Randomisation? How many do you think started reading this thread? How many do you think are still reading this thread? How many of them give even the slightest brick about what you, Auroroman or I think or write? Suddenly, you'll find yourself most likely in single figures.
But what really baffles me is that I never told you to post the link to that facebook page. I asked you to tell me in your own words which of their 'facts' you considered propaganda or flat out wrong. Why you considered it and the original source wrong. And then your own source indicating why its wrong. Despite your claims that I don't accept facts, this surely shows the opposite. I have been presented with one side and one fact, from the UNHCR. I then asked you for your side and your fact and its source. Instead, you've given me a whole load of political talk which has left me confused as to exactly what we're now discussing.
